A Supreme Court jury heard closing arguments in the case of an Ottawa man charged with smuggling almost $1 million of cannabis into the country in 2023.

Prosecutors said that Ngongo-Eric Sampassa had acknowledged the presence of drugs in his suitcase to customs officers before it was searched, but the defence said the Crown’s case boiled down to the interpretation of two words: “I do”.

Mr Sampassa, 32, has denied charges that he smuggled 9,736g of cannabis to the island on March 11, 2023, and that he possessed the drugs with an intent to supply.

A witness had told the court that the drugs, if sold on the streets of Bermuda in grams, could fetch almost $1 million.

The court heard that a sniffer dog alerted customs officials to a suitcase shortly after Mr Sampassa arrived on a flight from Toronto.

Mr Sampassa subsequently collected the bag and brought it to customs, where he was taken for a search.

Questioned about the alert, Mr Sampassa told a customs officer that he “maybe” had marijuana in his bag.

When the customs officer said that he either did or didn’t, he said: “I do.”

The bag was then opened to reveal 26 vacuum-sealed bags of cannabis and a wet beige towel.

Kael London, for the Crown, said that there was no dispute that Mr Sampassa had imported cannabis to the island but the question was if he knew the drugs were there.

Mr London said Mr Sampassa had confirmed the presence of drugs in his suitcase before it was opened and failed to tell customs officers the bag was not his, despite having had opportunities to do so.

“I don’t know about you but if I go to another country I’m not telling customs officers there is marijuana in my bag when I don’t know there’s marijuana in my bag,” he said.

“I would say ‘I don’t know’, ‘not that I am aware of’ or ‘that’s not my bag’.”

Mr Sampassa said that the bag was given to him by a friend named David Lit at the airport. Mr London said that there was no evidence to support the claim.

Mr London said that there was nothing before the court to suggest that Mr Lit was set to fly or stay in Bermuda, and there were no photographs, WhatsApp conversations or anything to suggest that he and Mr Sampassa knew each other.

He also suggested that Mr Sampassa produced his Canadian diplomatic passport after the cannabis was discovered in an attempt to use it as a “get out of jail free” card.

Mr London said that even under his version of events, Mr Sampassa had an opportunity to look inside the suitcase before he attached his name to it and, as a holder of a diplomatic passport and the spouse of an ambassador, he had an even greater responsibility to take it.

“Blind loyalty is not a defence,” he said. “Neither is wilful ignorance.

“Whether or not this David Lit is actually involved doesn’t negate the criminal liability and the responsibility of the defendant.

“Everyone has a duty and responsibility under the law and this defendant didn’t live up to that responsibility.”

Marc Daniels, counsel for Mr Sampassa, argued that his client had no reason to take the risk of importing controlled drugs because he was financially well-off and there was no evidence he was connected to the criminal element.

He agreed that the case came down to the question of knowledge.

However, he said there was not enough evidence to prove that the defendant knew, suspected or had reason to suspect the suitcase contained drugs when he checked it in.

Mr Daniels said that the case against his client boiled down to the words “I do” and if they were said with a question mark or an exclamation point.

“It’s a matter of inference,” he said. “It’s a matter of tone. It’s a matter of nuance.”

Mr Daniels said that after Mr Sampassa heard that a K9 unit had alerted the suitcase and that a customs officer remarked that he smelled an odour of cannabis coming from it, it was a logical inference for the defendant to make that the case might contain cannabis.

He also suggested that his client was pressured and may have misspoken in the circumstances.

Even if he had told customs officials that the suitcase was not his, Mr Daniels said he would almost certainly still have been charged and be before the courts.

He said Mr Sampassa was compliant throughout the process and there was no evidence that he was acting “shady and dodgy”.

Mr Daniels also said that when Mr Sampassa came to the immigration desk he presented his regular Canadian passport rather than his diplomatic one.

“He didn’t ask for special treatment,” he said. “He wasn’t trying to get any special treatment.”

Mr Daniels said that while there was no evidence about what conversation might have taken place between his client and Mr Lit, there was evidence that Mr Lit was a real person who had been charged with drugs offences in 2022.

He added that there was no evidence Mr Sampassa knew about the arrest when he agreed to take Mr Lit’s bag to Bermuda.

The trial is expected to conclude early next week.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case.